Posted
by
timothy
on Saturday December 17, 2011 @01:35PM
from the cato-institute-of-course dept.

New submitter yanom writes "I'm thinking about making a holiday donation to a charity, but I'm not sure where to give it. I've looked at organizations such as the Red Cross and Village Reach that promote disaster relief and health in the developing world. I want my money to have the biggest possible impact, so where should I send it?"

I want to help Hawa Akther Jui [elearners.com], a Bangladeshi woman whose husband disfigured her right hand when she dared to pursue higher education against his wishes. She's determined to continue learning by training her left hand to write, and I admire her persistence. Anyone who wants to join me is more than welcome, details in my linked blog post.

Either way, some part of revenue from the search engine is going to charity. You aren't generating anything new by using Bing's donation feature, just clicking a button to do what Google apparently already does.

You're trolling, and if you're not then you should volunteer for the same program that you advocate. Do you seriously believe that everyone that has ever been on welfare is stupid and a hopeless drain on society? I was unemployed for 2 years in my late teens, in an era where youth unemployment was over 20%. Guess what, I'm now a productive member of society who pays taxes and has done for many years. Being on welfare is not necessarily a life choice and doesn't relate to an individuals productivity or intelligence.

You obviously don't understand the very conservative (not the B$ pretend conservative but actually ruthless exploiters) basis for effective social welfare nets.

First up they help to stabilise the economy ie downturns reduce demand, producing more unemployment further reducing demand, social welfare puts a direct brake on this cycle.

Next social welfare substantially reduces crime, don't accept this easy just look at the crime rate difference between countries with effective social welfare nets and those without, in fact look no further than North America ie. Canada, US, Mexico.

Of course an effective social welfare net also has a direct outcome on health, basically because it reduces stresses within that society, fears about being able to pay for health care, fears about unemployment, fears for the future of the next generation.

As for requiring a licence to be a parent, sounds like a fine idea and in fact should be part of the compact for a more complete social welfare net. You could even go the harsh route, chemically neuter everyone at birth and then make them earn their fertility.

There's one hell of a difference between offering something for free and it being compulsory. I find it highly unlikely that the mentioned charity is using its funding to forcibly sterilize anyone. Just like the salvation army does not force anyone to accept donated clothing, food or toys.

It's fundamentally no different than doing it to Jews or black people, there's no genetic sequence to identify those people either.

I don't know about Jews, because that's sort of a complex label. But you can absolutely tell ancestry from a genetic sample. "African descent" (what most people in the U.S. would call "black") is easy to discern from a DNA sample.

Law enforcement agencies have been slower to adopt using this capability because it's considered a political landmine to say (for example) that they know that a murdering rapist is black with only DNA evidence to go by. But it can be done, and it has been done. Here's an example:

You can get eye color, hair color, and other traits too. The science is getting better.

That said:

Just because you disagree with something, doesn't make it the same as something else that you disagree with.

Eugenics is selecting based on inherited traits. You can object to both practices without them being the same thing. This organization is doing something that you may object to. But it's distinct from eugenics. That doesn't make it right (or wrong), just different.

Giving your time may make you feel better - but when $10 can feed a family for 4 for a day or two, with soups, breads etc., your time is inherently useless. Go use your time to earn money and then pass it on. Barter was fundamentally inefficient - and hence money came to be. Why go backwards ?

There's some truth to that, but there are also transaction costs, principal-agent problems, unsavory things hidden by black boxes, bureaucracy, and various other such problems. When you give a non-profit organization $100, they may do a wide range of things. The best case is that they optimally use it in exactly the manner you would've preferred. But since you aren't actually there to see they do, it's hard to be sure. They might divert an unnecessarily large amount of it to staff salaries, travel, perks, P

I have 10 mod points, and I really wanted to use them on this post, but I think that you've said somethings that really need addressing.

Before I go any further, I would like to admit right now that there are bad charities out there. One leaps to mind that we saw move in here about 2 years ago. It purported to be "thinking about the children", yet near as I can tell, the only charitable thing it ever did was spend about 5k to throw a christmas party for the kids (admittedly, they did that twice, bringing us to a total charitable contribution of 10k). Meanwhile, the head of this charity lived in a 750k USD house and drove a 90k USD car. Scams happen, I won't say that they don't.

Next, a bit of background: I'm a paramedic, I have lived and worked for various NPOs in Honduras for the past three years. I tend to tell people that I volunteer down here, and while in the strictest sense, that's not true, in effect, it is. I make about 1/5 of what I could earn if I were working in the states (and if you know anything about EMS payscales, that's saying something.).

So let's examine your four objections:

1) Staff Salaries: As I said above, I make about 20% of what I could reasonably expect to make if I were working in the states. Theoretically, then, I should be able to work up there 20% of the time, then volunteer down here the other 80% of the time. Realistically, though, even supposing that I could find an employer willing to do that (Highly unlikely, in my field, though not, perhaps, impossible),, there's a big difference around here between the trust you get from the community from being someone who lives here full time and someone who comes in to spend some time volunteering, and no matter how skewed the numbers as far as how much time you spend where, you'll always be seen in that light. Around here, I'm known by those I work with as "El gringo grande" (I'm 6'8), but that's a term of endearment, rather than the more common "El gringo" that I see applied to many people who come here repeatedly. with the best of intentions.

2) Travel: I've actually never been offered travel reimbursements, though I've had to turn down a couple of offers because I couldn't afford the travel costs. Now it's entirely possible that those charities found someone else to fill the role who could afford them, and could do it as well or better than I could, but frankly, and without a hint of egotism (no, really!), I'm very good at what I do, not only the actual meat and bones of responding to emergencies, but also in integrating myself into a community and educating without being patronizing. That last is a surprisingly hard task, I've met very few who can do it, and none who are better at it than me in my particular bailiwick...though I will say I've met two who are better at doing it in medicine in general.

3) Perks: Again, I've never been offered any perks (aside form the medivac service I worked with offering my free coverage should I need their services), however unlike the above, it's never prevented me from taking a position, but then I'm healthy, young (28), and single. There are, I imagine, plenty of other people who couldn't take such a position without some assurance of health coverage, some sort of retirement or education for their kids.

4) Finally, and in some ways the biggest point: "fees". First off, let's call a spade a spade, they're bribes. Having said that, though, bribes are important to actually getting shit done in most of the world. I've paid bribes, and I'll almost certainly pay more, but that's just the cost of doing business. Corruption has to be viewed with a certain amount of pragmatism. You're kidding yourself if you think that it doesn't exist in whatever (presumably, though I could be wrong) developed nation you live in, it's just that around here it's right up front where you can keep an eye on it. And really, it's cheaper and easier, too. If I want to do something around here, I slip a couple hundred bucks to someone in the health ministry, and away

It depends on what and when. Sometimes extra hands DO help. If you are good at IT, helping people on how to work with a computer might like learning them to fish.Just talking to a lonely elder person is better then buying them a TV or even (audio)books.

helping people on how to work with a computer might like learning them to fish.

Except computers are significantly less nutritious. The basic necessities for quality of life (food, medicine, clothes, shelter) are still much more about money than time.

Using your time to teach (or volunteer in so many other ways) is admirable, but you do also have to look at the opportunity cost. For someone who makes $100+ an hour (or equivalent) working a demanding job and then donating to a charity might be more effective overall than volunteering their time.

Anyway, you make a good point, not disputing it (the OP saying "your time is not valuable" is just incorrect) - but in many cases you time *is* less valuable than your money...

If you send then a note saying something like "take me off your list" or "do not send me anything more than one solicitation per year" it seems likely they would comply. Certainly the small local charities I have been involved in would be happy to not waste their fundraising resources on people unlikely to donate.

I just recently heard on Freakonomics that an effective tool in fund raising was to include a checkbox on your money request saying "don't contact me again" - it addresses the issue that dargaud has encountered and supposedly also makes the donor feel more in control, more likely to donate, and actually few people actually check the box.

Courtney's House is good--small local shelter in DC for trafficking victims. Or Talk to Polaris Project, either to donate to them or to ask where the closest place to you is that offers safe shelter for trafficking victims--there aren't many in the country, compared with tens of thousands of victims.

In the alternative, look for someplace that is underfunded and does good work. Unpopular but important causes, for example--legal aid, or someplace that does legal or

It may not be as efficient, but donate to a local Occupy movement. Particularly in the northern climates, they need money for food, clothing, blankets, etc.. as these people are camping out (sometimes without camping gear because local ordinances do not allow it).

As a gift that keeps on giving, these people are doing things that will beneift YOU in the long run.

1. If someone believes in their cause, but lacks the availability to participate themselves, donating is a very good way to support them. Just because *you* personally don't believe in their cause does not mean no-one else does. Most likely you misunderstand their motives; I would suggest you read/watch something other than the (corporate) main-stream media.

I read recently that the American Red Cross is one of several charities that "carefully walk the line" of being a nonprofit organization, and that 49% of their take goes to "administrative costs". (their "administrative staff" are very well-paid) Can anyone confirm or deny this?

Excuse me, but what does one person retiring with "a very good pension" say about how high the administrative costs are vs program costs? Charity Navigator says ARC has a 3.9% administrative cost. The parent post claims 49% administrative cost (which is insanely high). If you believe Charity Navigator, he's only off by an order of magnitude.

During WWII, ARC would give away free coffee and doughnuts to officers, and that was well-publicized. What wasn't publicized was the fact that ARC would charge enlisted men a dime for the same thing. When my father learned of this (he was an officer), he demanded that his men be given the same deal. When ARC refused, he gave them their doughnuts and coffee back, and spread the story among the other officers.

I did think about it. My conclusion is that anecdotal evidence of one person who doesn't even mention numbers ("very good pension") is completely irrelevant when trying to get a handle on administrative costs vs program costs.During WWII, ARC would give away free coffee and doughnuts to officers, and that was well-publicized

Yes, and as someone else pointed out, ARC was asked to do this by the U.S. Army:

I have worked for the ARC for over 11 years now as both a volunteer and a paid staff member. The organization is very top heavy with mostly overpaid executives at the National Headquarters in Washington DC. Generally the volunteers and staff "in the field" are the ones who go to great lengths to serve clients. Many positions in the field have been eliminated in recent years as the executives in the "ivory tower" protect their own salaries and positions. Our Service Members and their families are now served mostly by call centers empoyees who are inexperienced instead of caring employees working alongside our military throughout the world.

I've spent the better part of my career as a nonprofit tech warrior, from serving in the Peace Corps to a variety of domestic and internationally focused NGOs and non-profits, small and large, contract, full-time and pro-bono.

I hate the constant drive that non-profits feel towards minimizing anything that could be counted as "overhead." It's misleading, and eventually kills efficiency. Not having someone to answer phones, not having a budget to roll out a website, penny-pinching on every single thing that's not directly program-related does a variety of things. It burns staff out at an alarming rate, as they spend their often-unreported and uncompensated overtime to balance the lack of budget to hire additional staff or contractors. Second, it causes cost-cutting in ways that often lead to waste or additional in the long run. It suppresses wages and pushes good staff out of the sector entirely. Finally, it causes a donor-driven view of accounting, where every dollar must be accountable to some chunk of some program, instead of being broadly useful to the health of the organization and its mission.

This hurts the organizations, obviously - but as a donor, that's less important - you (like those working at the organization) care about the cause. And year-end campaigns are a huge benefit to organizations - providing them with unrestricted funds that they can use for the health of the organization, instead of funds driven by grant projects.

So give - as others have noted, find a local cause you're familiar with. Use CharityNavigator to weed out suspicious/dubious causes, but please - do not be turned off by high overheads. They're healthy. They mean the organization has a longer-term view on its role in making change.

Even better - find a social enterprise - an organization that has a double or triple bottom line, creating a profit or self-sustaining funding situation by selling products or services which also help them lift up a community through employment, skills training, and so on.

What I like about the Salvation Army is they operate under the principle that people will always donate and they spend the money as it is donated.

The Red Cross and others seem to want to build a war chest so that when a big disaster hits they will be prepared. They take money from big events and hold some of it over for other operations. What bothers me about this is it seems like they don't trust people to donate when something happens.

I can't mod this up so I'll just add my voice to the comment.The Salvation Army is one of the better charities I have come across, I make it a point every year to donate either money, food, clothing or time.

It takes time for donations to wind up as available cash to spend on disaster relief. Do you think when you make a credit card donation the money is instantly transferred to the charity? From what I've heard this can sometimes take months.

I'm no charitable donations expert, but I'd guess that donations don't all come in at once, but slowly over a period of weeks. If a major disaster occurs, do you think a charity should just wait around for the money to come in, or start acting right away? Acting right away requires having money on hand.

Actually, there are budget models other than that of the U.S. government. Many of those models include saving money for anticipated large expenses, or for possible disasters. Some also include spending money where and when it is most needed - even if that requires saving it awhile. Instead of judging them on how quickly they spend donations, I suggest judging them on how effectively they use the money for their stated goals, and be sure to check a time period of at least a decade.

The Red Cross and others seem to want to build a war chest so that when a big disaster hits they will be prepared.

And this is bad why?

Disaster relief is complicated, and thus expensive. You need supplies, equipment, and people with training. Between getting people to donate, getting funds to where they need to be, getting goods procured, getting people trained, and then moving it all to where it needs to be, the lead time is non-trivial. This isn't a hard drive; you can't just order it from NewEgg and have it there next day.

I don't get this objection to disaster relief organizations being prepared for disasters.

If you're just wanting to make a difference to someone, and not the tax write-off, find a family struggling to make ends meet and be their holiday benefactor, or give out sack lunches to the homeless, or volunteer at a soup kitchen. No better way to make sure your kindness does the most good than to do it yourself.

Unfortunately, a lot of charities have obscenely high administrative overheads, which means much of the money goes to lawyers fees, office rental in high rent districts, gala charity donation parties (granted, they pay for themselves) and other PR work. The Economist had a piece on this a while back. Even some of the UN agencies and a Lady Diana Charity Fund were some of the worse offenders.

Hey, whoever said "Charity begins in the home" was probably right . . . if you give close to home, you'll be able to see for yourself where it is going.

I can confirm this, even on the "local" level charities. I have worked with several "charity" groups doing IT work (NO - I won't name them). Several times it was recovering their financial data files after being corrupted for various reasons. Every time, I about shit myself when I looked at the actual data (had to confirm the data was valid with accountants). The worst I saw was one group that used 5% of their donations for actual recipients, the rest went to "administrative" costs (salaries in the 6 figure range, pension, rent, etc.).

I've since quit taking any work from charity organizations, and I refuse to donate any money to them.

I give yearly to Child's Play. They're not in it to create a self-sustaining entity, and the cause could not be better. When you're sick, your quality of life can really make a difference in your recovery. If a game can distract a kid from their pain or fears for a little while, that is everything. Their administrative fees are pretty low, and quite reasonable considering what those fees are paying for. I'm sure PayPal and the credit card companies are getting their cut, and there's shipping costs for all t

I did some research into this about a year ago - and decided to go with Plan International [plan-international.org].

My criteria:

A large percentage of their donations had to go directly to the

Non-religious

Focused on third world countries

Infrastructure and educational projects

Long-term investment in specific locations

I give specifically to their water project. I think that while sponsoring a child is significant, I find that I'd rather put my money specifically into infrastructure. Water and Sanitary systems, in my mind, are more important than education within a community - and I figure many others put money into education.

You could try examining potential recipients at Charity Navigator [charitynavigator.org]. They evaluate charities based on their operational effectiveness and allow you to compare a potential recipient against others that serve similar needs.

Basically, after any kind of disaster, natural or otherwise, they deploy a team out with plastic tubs filled with just about anything a family would need to start getting back on their feet like a tent, some basic food and water purification type things, along with some tools to improve what they have available. They are also constantly tweaking the box as better items become available, or in some instances they tailor the contents to where the boxes are being sent.

Decent charity that I found out from a friend. I've started to donate to them yearly now, along with some other charities for more personal reasons.

donorschoose.org - they support educational projects. I like them because you give to a specific project, can chose the type of project,location, etc, and they clearly lay out the need, what will be supplied, and their administrative fees up front. If you want to support education, they would be a good choice.

Living in the US, I think it's a gross injustice that people in my immediate area don't have enough food to eat. As such, I have decided most of my charity contributions will go to the local community food bank. It's super easy to see how the money is being used (volunteer and meet the people involved, go down and talk to the admins), it improves the lives of people who live near you, and you get a tax deduction.

National and international organizations are nice, especially for medical causes, but for me local food bank seemed best.

I was centrally involved with relief for the Haiti earthquake and observed the Red Cross and many other such organizations in action. Or rather inaction. Their lack of logistical expertise and disaster planning is shocking.

But one outfit that did seem to have their act together was Doctors without Borders/Medecins sans Frontieres. They just hop on planes and start helping people, no BS. They also seem to have relatively low overhead, which is where the lion's share of every donated dollar goes at most charities. Maybe someone else on/. knows differently, but at least from the outside as a colleague they seemed effective and well deserving of support.

While I'll confess I have a fondness for "lending" through KIVA (http://www.kiva.org), you may find that your charity dollars go a lot further with local organizations, some of which are struggling. I live in Baltimore and have several favorites: The Ark, a pre-school that provides special services and a comfortable environment for kids living in homeless shelters; House of Ruth, our local women's shelter; Our Daily Bread, a formidable soup kitchen and feeding operation run by the Catholics. I've also found

I know that God is not popular on Slashdot, but even from a rational humanist perspective these charities are very effective. The administrative costs are usually born by regular tithing so any funds given to the charity can be spent 100% on the core mission of the charity. Especially, in the area of disaster relief, these charities also have strong connections with the local congregations who can quickly put resources to use where it is most needed. This in contrast to groups like the Red Cross usually have to spend time "getting in" to places.

I know there will be some objections voiced that the money will be used to evangelize victims rather then aid them. I cannot speak for other sectors of the religious sphere, but charities associated with Mainline Protestant Christian churches operate in perpetual fear of this accusation and copiously avoid any activity that might be mistaken for proselytizing.

I give to Charity: Water [charitywater.org]. They've got a great proposition where 100% of your donations go directly to the field to fund water projects. They're also a tech saavy group of folks and try to prove that by providing GPS signals and photos of the project you funded. Administrative costs are covered separately by a group of benefactors (who understand they are solely paying for administrative costs).

I'd advise you and others to contribute all you can to the "Let's Buy Ken a Ferrari" fund.

Rather than wonder where your money went, you'll enjoy the sweet, sweet sound of a V12 will be echoing throughout the concrete canyon as I blast down Main Street. You'll be able to shout "This is my gift to you all!" and feel the admiring glances of those who wish they had contributed as well.

What could possibly do more to help mankind than to share the sounds of a V12 Ferrari?

It really depends on your definition of "charity", and your intent - it can be defined as anything that's non-profit and tax deductible, which has a rather large scope.

Lots of things are non-profit and seen as charity donations - art museum and symphony, sports teams (kids soccer and baseball), research towards medicine (aids, MS), EFF and lawyer advocate associations, and so on.

All of these enrich our lives and make the world a better place. Donating directly instead of through a charity organization makes better sense because more of the money goes directly to the organization.

Your local Rotary club, for instance, is manned by locals who donate their time and would better know your community needs.

If your intent is to reduce the suffering of people directly, might I suggest Plan USA [planusa.org].

Plan USA chooses a needy child somewhere in the world and uses your donations to help them grow up. Their administrative overhead is relatively low, and you get periodic feedback showing how your monies are used. They also sponsor village improvements, such as sanitation, clean water, &c.

In addition, your donation is year round instead of just during the holidays. IIRC sponsoring a child is on the order of $325 a year.

If I may suggest an alternative, give micro loans through kiva.org instead. You can just keep recycling the money into new loans as you get paid back. The good gets multiplied many times over and communities get built up.

Go to your local soup kitchen and ask what they need. Then buy it and give them the goods.Also don't just do it because it is Christmas. Ask what they need all year around and give food or whatever they need monthly or even on a weekly basis.

Time is also something that they can use. Take time to talk to lonely elderly people. The downside is that you won't get rid of your money and get back more then you give away.

Pretty much as efficient as you can get: 100% of the proceeds go to help those in need. The LDS Church doesn't even deduct the cost of administering the donations, so literally *everything* you donate ends up helping the needy.

If you donate online, just enter the amount in the "humanitarian services" field - that goes to disaster relief and other efforts. If you call them you can have it applied more specifically. For example there is a program they are doing to supply wheelchairs to those in need, to help dig water wells to villages in Africa, etc. and you can ask that your money go specifically to one of those programs if you want.

I see a lot of comments bashing the overhead costs of different charity organisations. Granted, some of it might be unnecessary, but not all of it. The logistics needed for a relief operation in a catastrophe site is a huge and difficult challenge, and only a sufficiently large and professional organisation can handle it. You need materials, food, shelter, trucks, people with different skill sets, lawyers and diplomats to ensure the cooperation of the local government, and so on. It can be quite chaotic, and of course it's going to be inefficient form time to time - but it helps. Without the people who are handling the economics and the logistics, there would be no food or shelter for the workers in the field to hand out.

If everyone who gave to charity gave to the one who deserves it the most, then all causes in the world except for the most worthy one would receive no money, until that most worthy cause was completely paid for, in which case the second most worthy cause would receive all the money, etc.

So I'd think a bit before giving to the most worthwhile. If it was me I'd give to groups that did things I knew about even if they weren't the most worthy groups in the world, which would include geeky groups like the EFF, or maybe local organizations.

I also agree with others that volunteering your time is a bad idea. Use your time to earn money and donate the money. We have division of labor for a reason. People like volunteering because it's more personal, but "more personal" and "helps people more" aren't necessarily the same thing.

I like to fund medical research, most frequently cancer. I do so for two reasons. First, I like to think that I'm making things better forever. Research doesn't get used up, so whatever I donate we're now that farther ahead in science than we would be otherwise. Second, selfishly, I think someday I just might need to benefit directly from what that research produces.

There is frequently a lot of hue and cry here about the evil drug companies overcharging for medicines they have patents on. Don't want them to have those patents? Fund medical research yourself with a charity who puts the results into the public domain. I know it's not perfect since someone is free to use those results commercially as well, but it's an improvement.

I like the fact that they have established a way of dealing with their charity faliures [admittingfailure.com], which makes them a respectable charity in my book.... And adds some credibility to the profession of engineering, imho.

No, give it to ME. I have zero overhead - I can guarantee that 100% of the net you give me will go to the intended recipient.

I even accept chocolate!

Seriously though, if you don't know what to give or where, go ask at:

1. your local police or fire station. They get to see human misery every day, and they know about those "pockets of need"
2. your local hospital or clinic. Same thing.
3. your local animal shelter. Pets are people too, and they're going to need a lot of help dealing with the annual post-christmas "pet dump".
4. your local schools. The teachers know that there's always some kid who need a winter coat, warm boots, or something.
5. your local library. It's probably under-funded, and you can make a "donation" by buying old books from them so they can buy new books.
6. your local church, synagogue or temple - even if you're an atheist, these organizations are still good points of contact for the needy
7. your local homeless shelter. Obvious reasons
8. your local media - tv, radio, print...
9. your local city counselor, alderman, mayor, or whatever
10. your friends and neighbors.

What all these things have in common is that they're all local, they're all just an email or a phone call or a click away, and that they'll have an immediate impact - within days - and they all benefit your community. Charity begins at home.

What all these things have in common is that they're all local, they're all just an email or a phone call or a click away, and that they'll have an immediate impact - within days - and they all benefit your community. Charity begins at home.

I think there's a strong argument to be made for charity overseas, because that's where the need is greatest. The typical poor household in America is poor only in relative terms. A typical household at the poverty line will have clean water, electricity, enough to eat, a car, two TVs and cable, a microwave, and a video game system. They are poor in the sense that they have fewer luxuries than the average household, not in the sense that they don't have enough of the essentials.

"Explaining it" doesn't make it correct. The comparison was grossly inaccurate, because you were basing the costs on two different types of packaging. I pay less for bulk macaroni than I do for bulk rice. If I want to buy cheaper rice, the cost comes to about the same. But really, good rice tastes good all by itself. No need to add any flavouring or seasoning. After all, eating is about more than just "fueling the body."

Also, any search wrt rice-based diets points out that rice is an incomplete sourc

While I listed one of my favorites elsewhere in this thread, Toys for Tots is another I wholeheartedly support. They do good locally, and make a difference in a child life. The best story I heard about them was from a young Marine, who said while he as growing up, thought Santa wore Marine Dress Blues.

For those wanting to donate to the largest charity (case) in the world, here's the link [treas.gov].

Citizens who wish to make a general donation to the U.S. government may send contributions to a specific account called "Gifts to the United States." This account was established in 1843 to accept gifts, such as bequests, from individuals wishing to express their patriotism to the United States. Money deposited into this account is for general use by the federal government and can be available for budget needs. These contributions are considered an unconditional gift to the government. Financial gifts can be made by check or money order payable to the United States Treasury and mailed to the address below.

Gifts to the United States
U.S. Department of the Treasury
Credit Accounting Branch
3700 East-West Highway, Room 622D
Hyattsville, MD 20782

Any tax-related questions regarding these contributions should be directed to the Internal Revenue ServiceExit the FMS Web site at (800) 829-1040.